Four experiments examined people's responses to intergroup violence either committed or suffered by their own group. Experiment 1 demonstrated that Serbs who strongly glorified Serbia were more ...supportive of future violence against, and less willing to reconcile with, Bosniaks after reading about Serbian victimization by Bosniaks rather than Serbian transgressions against Bosniaks. Replicating these effects with Americans in the context of American–Iranian tensions, Experiment 2 further showed that demands for retributive justice explained why high glorifiers showed asymmetrical reactions to ingroup victimization vs. perpetration. Again in the Serb and the American context, respectively, Experiments 3 and 4 demonstrated that post‐conflict international criminal tribunals can help satisfy victim group members' desire for retributive justice, and thereby reduce their support for future violence and increase their willingness to reconcile with the perpetrator group. The role of retributive justice and the use of international criminal justice in intergroup conflict (reduction) are discussed.
Two studies tested the idea that perceived normalization of radical political ideologies (right and left) reduces support for freedom of speech of the opponents and political tolerance. In Study 1 (N ...= 633), Americans were primed with the normalization of the radical right or left. Primed with the normalization of radical outgroup ideologies, both liberals and conservatives were more willing to restrict their opponents’ freedom of speech and were more politically intolerant – effects that were mediated by collective angst. Study 2 (N = 632) replicated the results of Study 1 and extended them by showing that both conservatives and liberals worried about the image of their party not when they were exposed to the normalization of radical ingroup ideologies, but when they were exposed to the normalization of radical outgroup ideologies. These results suggest that perceived normalization of radical ideologies affects people’s attitudes towards freedom of speech and political (in)tolerance.
Reviews the books, Advancing Nonviolence and Social Transformation: New Perspectives on Nonviolent Theories edited by Heather Eaton and Lauren Michelle Levesque (2016) and The Paradox of Repression ...and Nonviolent Movements edited by Lester R. Kurtz and Lee A. Smithey (2018). The importance of the former work lies in its approach to the concept of nonviolence. In several introductory chapters, Eaton and Levesque place nonviolence in its historical context, an approach that provides the readership with a deeper insight into the dynamics of nonviolence. Moreover, it discusses nonviolence not only as a strategy to bring about social change but also as a philosophy of life. Finally, after examining the dynamics as well as the functionality of nonviolence in various contexts, including, but not limited to, suppression of indigenous people, subjugation of women, and ecological concerns, they put forth new ideas regarding how creative nonviolent strategies can motivate the current and future generations to treat each other and the natural environment with less violence and more respect. The importance of the latter work lies in its focus on various forms of repression and potentials of nonviolence to counteract it, what they call repression management. In doing so, Lester R. Kurtz and Lee A. Smithey took a Foucaultian approach to the concept of power as a relational attribute that can be regenerated “within and between groups.” Drawing on the relational nature of power, they shed light on various forms of repression, including, but not limited to, online (e.g., tracking activists via their online activities) and offline repression (imprisoning, torturing, and killing of those who participate in nonviolent action). The authors discuss how activists may benefit from nonviolent strategies to circumvent such repressions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)
Full text
Available for:
CEKLJ, FFLJ, NUK, ODKLJ, PEFLJ
Across four experimental studies (NStudy 1 = 466, a hypothetical movement in Bhutan, NStudy 2 = 447, a hypothetical movement in the United Kingdom, NStudy 3 = 463, a hypothetical movement in Bhutan, ...NStudy 4 = 460, a real movement in the United States) and an integrated data analysis, we examined when third parties (i.e., those who are not actively engaged in the movement) will support a social movement that permits the use of violence. In Studies 1-3, third parties were more willing to support violence when it was framed as having shifted to violence when nonviolence failed to achieve their goals. Mediation analyses revealed that a shift toward permitting violence reduced support to the extent that the shift created perceived moral decline in the social movement (Studies 1-3), but increased when the shift was perceived to be a last resort (Study 3). Last, we showed (Study 4) most effects disappear when third parties are told that they may be in close proximity to the violence (Study 4). These suggest third parties can and do support the use of violence as well as when and why such support is offered.
Public Significance Statement
This study suggests that people may be more supportive of a historically nonviolent social movement who recently change its strategy to violence as opposed to a historically violent movement. Moreover, changing strategy from nonviolence to violence damages the moral image of the movement and leads to receiving less support from the third party observers. Policy makers and movement leaders may take into account the history of the movement and potential consequences of changing strategy from nonviolent to violence.
Full text
Available for:
CEKLJ, FFLJ, NUK, ODKLJ, PEFLJ
Five studies investigated the links between rights-focused (RFM) and duty-focused mindsets (DFM) and prosociality. Making salient both RFM and DFM in a within-participants designs, Studies 1-2 ...examined the relationships of RFM and DFM with a number of outcomes related to prosocial attitudes. Results indicated that RFM and DFM both uniquely increased prosociality. Experimentally inducing either RFM or DFM in a between-participants design, Study 3 found that RFM had stronger effects on prosocial outcomes than DFM. Further, Study 3 showed that this relative advantage of RFM over DFM in boosting prosociality was due to RFM (relative to DFM) increasing people’s perceived importance and relevance of individualizing morality (harm and fairness). Study 4 thus explored the possibility that RFM’s greater default potential to increase prosociality is due to the inherent focus of rights on individuality, and whether, by the same token, DFM strengthen its potential to increase prosociality as long as the situation is highly individualized. Adding a baseline to the design of Study 3, and using a vignette paradigm, Study 4 showed that in a context of interpersonal helping (i.e., a highly individualized context), relative to baseline both RFM and (especially) DFM increased people’s prosocial attitudes and behavioral intentions. In a 2x2 design, Study 5 experimentally manipulated mindsets (RFM vs. DFM) as well as individuality (high vs. low, asking participants to think about someone in their inner or outer social network). In line with the individuality explanation, there was a general effect of individuality, prosociality being higher (across both RFM and DFM conditions) when participants thought about someone in their inner rather than outer social network. Together, these studies provide evidence for the prosocial potential of RFM; illuminate the roots of this potential; and, by doing so, show a way to leverage this knowledge to increase the prosocial potential of DFM.
PDF
